Github List Repos

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is established. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance beyond those annotations: endpoint selection depends on account type, /users hides organisation private repositories, and the caller can see their own private repos. No contradiction with annotations is present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is front-loaded and the endpoint-routing sentence earns its place by explaining a non-obvious behavior. However, 'See #354' and the workflow line referencing github_get_skill('user-activity') are cryptic pointers that do little to help an agent select or invoke the tool. The description is reasonably sized but not every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple read-only listing tool with four optional parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description covers the main non-obvious risk—how owner account type affects endpoint and private-repo visibility. The cryptic references are minor flaws rather than missing essential invocation information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50%, with owner and per_page documented but page and sort left to inference. The description adds useful meaning for owner by explaining account-type-dependent endpoint behavior and private-repo visibility. However, it does not compensate for the undocumented page and sort parameters, leaving part of the parameter semantics to be guessed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Lists repositories for a user, an organisation, or the caller.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target PRs, releases, tags, or milestones. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides useful operational routing guidance—'the owner's account type picks the endpoint, since /orgs 404s on a person and /users hides an organisation's private repositories'—but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus an alternative. The workflow line references github_get_skill('user-activity') rather than explaining tool-selection criteria. Usage context is mostly implied by the name and first sentence.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.